Kate Hudson, Vanuatu volcano

Tim Whitby/Getty Images, AP Photo/Morris Harrison

On the positive side, Kate Hudson is finally garnering headlines for something other than her revolving-door love life. On the negative side, it's because she was sued.

Turns out Hudson succeeded in making her new haircare line, David Babaii for Wildaid, eco-friendly; she was less successful at making it scientist-friendly.

At least, to the scientists who claim to have discovered and provided, with no compensation, the line's secret ingredient. (View the lawsuit)

According to a complaint filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court, the Los Angeles-based 220 Laboratories lobbed no fewer than 17 causes of action against Hudson and her hair guru Babaii, including fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, breach of confidence and a host of other not-so-nice allegations, claiming the famous duo welshed on an oral contract establishing the lab as the sole providers of the range's raw materials.

Under the terms of an August 2006 oral contract, 220 Laboratories say it agreed to develop and manufacture the line around the so-called "Vanuatu Complex," basically samples of environmental life and volcanic ash found on the Vanuatu Islands that, apparently, works wonders on flyaways.

However, the lab claims that, after months of dealings and a change in the Wildaid management, Hudson & Co. opted to take the secret ingredient list and hightail it over to a competing manufacturer, who agreed to work on the line at a lower cost than 220 Laboratories.

Much to the lab's dismay, the suit asserts, the competitors' products and packaging were a little too similar to their original idea, as was the product's inclusion of the so-called Vanuatu Complex.

Hyping the special ingredient continued with a high-profile appearance by Babaii on the Home Shopping Network in July, to which Hudson called in to promote the products, as well as in promotional videos for the line, which officially launched a month earlier.

220 Laboratories claims it neither consented to the use of its ingredient nor name and, even if there was consent, the lab has yet to receive any form of payment.

The plaintiffs ars seeking compensatory and punitive damages plus interest.

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Share

We and our partners use cookies on this site to improve our service, perform analytics, personalize advertising, measure advertising performance, and remember website preferences. By using the site, you consent to these cookies. For more information on cookies including how to manage your consent visit our Cookie Policy.